Ice Loss In West Antarctica Is Speeding Up 422
An anonymous reader writes: A new study just published on Antarctic ice loss by Christopher Harig and Frederik Simons of Princeton confirm West Antarctica is losing mass fast. The study used satellite measurements to determine the rate of mass loss. The lead author of the study told The Guardian: "It is very important that we continue long term monitoring of how mass changes in ice sheets. For West Antarctica in particular this is important because of how it is thought to be more unstable, where the feedbacks can cause more and more ice loss from the land over time. These strong regional accelerations that we see are very robustly measured and imply that Antarctica may become a major contributor to sea level rise in the near future. This increase in the mass loss rate, in ten years, accelerations like that show that things are beginning to change on human time scales."
Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wave (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html
Re: (Score:3)
are climate worryers moving away from florida?
why not?
how much does the sea rise if the entire west antarctic melts?
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:4, Informative)
"If the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt, this would contribute 4.8 m (16 ft) to global sea level."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... [wikipedia.org]
Obviously, even if this were to happen, it would take a considerable amount of time.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it could take a very long time, but then again it could take far less than we would expect. The Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in something like 3 weeks. Scientists at the time knew it was unstable and in trouble but nobody thought that much ice could breakup and melt so fast.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, it's not just West Antarctica. There are areas on the eastern side that are of great concern, the rate of ice loss is up over 70% in 10 yrs and then there's Greenland and the overwhelming majority of land-based glaciers that are also melting.
Yes, it'll all take time but with every passing decade it seems to be speeding up.
Re: (Score:2)
"Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not."
[ironic]
Well, I used to be a denialist that thought there were nothing needed to do, because there was no problem.
But now, I'm convinced: there is a climate change and it is pushed forward by humankind.
Unfortunately, it's too late to avoid it, so I'll do nothing either.
[/ironic]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to worry about this right after I get done with my "halt the rising waters" campaign to stop the tides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
of climate change deniers.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
You probably have a really small car.
Climate change is normal - it's happened throughout history.
Warm weather will be nice - I'll save money on heating. Are you a shill for power companies?
The "ice" has melted before - it was good (comeonin). Dinosaurs aren't going to come back... and there won't be any volcanoes where I live.
I've got a multi-billion dollar plan to stop global warming if it really bothers you - it does require a hell of a lot of energy and toxic by-products (but we've proved overheating the
Re: (Score:3)
of climate change deniers.
Of course, we're not going to do anything about the problem. Of course not.
What exactly is a "climate change denier"? Is that someone who denies that the climate changes? Would you be so kind as to point to a specific example of someone who has actually said the climate hasn't changed, isn't changing and won't change? I certainly don't know of anyone who is that stupid.
(Although, it does seem that some people think the climate shouldn't change and that, because it is changing, that's a Bad Thing. But those aren't the skeptics.)
Or by "climate change denier" do you mean some
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing worse than the climate change deniers are the people like you who are absolutely convinced that the doomsday is coming. At least the deniers are skeptical.
Very few deniers are honestly skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the money trail.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at tetraethyl lead, the lead industry, and the scientists who discovered in the 1940s the horrible things TEL does to children, then read on why it wasn't banned until 1973.
Look at smoking, the scientists who started figuring out all the awful shit it does to the body, and the tobacco industry that spent 25 years fighting a systematic FUD campaign (and personal character attacks against them).
Now scientists have spent decades fleshing out the basic idea that Arrhenius articulated about 120 years ago and it's becoming increasingly a sign of lunacy to claim he wasn't right... Yet just as smoking-causes-cancer denialism was the unbelievably stupid meme that Just Wouldn't Fucking Die because the tobacco industry kept funding it, and the leaded-gasoline-is-harmless denialism that was funded directly by the lead industry before that, now certain interests that want to burn and/or strip mine the word in the name of the Holy Lord's Next Quarterly Profit Report are funding a massive, systematic attack against any coherent action on climate change. And you people are falling for it. AGAIN.
Are we seriously expected to believe that 97% of the world's scientists are involved in some sort of massive scheme to... uh... steal grant money? Or that maybe damn near everyone who looks into what's going on realizes we really gotta do something about this crap?
Re: (Score:3)
Well tell you what, we've got a whole thread which will likely be long. If I see an honestly skpetical response, then I'll post it here. Feel free to do the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, deniers aren't skeptical. A skeptic even wonders if THEY are right, and are willing to change their mind in the face of evidence, instead of hunting for some third-hand anecdotal report that might possibly indicate a vague problem or issue with the evidence for. Then assumes it's true and the evidence for AGW being real is faked.
That's not skepticism. That's denial.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
I sort of agree, but then, do we have time to wait for the 'logical evolution of the science'? Most science is done by making observations that prove hypotheses. In this case there is a slight problem with this way of making science. Once the observations are indisputable, its a bit too late to change things.
That is why I back 100% the hypothesis that leads the human race to clean up their act and (I hope) create technology that ultimately leads to a Star Trek sort of socialist utopia.
Even if it costs current-day industrialists their last million in bonuses.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
I sort of agree, but then, do we have time to wait for the 'logical evolution of the science'? Most science is done by making observations that prove hypotheses. In this case there is a slight problem with this way of making science. Once the observations are indisputable, its a bit too late to change things.
That is why I back 100% the hypothesis that leads the human race to clean up their act and (I hope) create technology that ultimately leads to a Star Trek sort of socialist utopia.
Even if it costs current-day industrialists their last million in bonuses.
Let's not be naive about our society. Star Trek as a model will never be in our grasp unless there is a total revolution, other wise our society if anything will evolve similar to that of the Ferengi.
We are ruled by a growing technocracy that is manipulated by avaricious oligarchs.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
I sort of agree, but then, do we have time to wait for the 'logical evolution of the science'? Most science is done by making observations that prove hypotheses. In this case there is a slight problem with this way of making science. Once the observations are indisputable, its a bit too late to change things.
I don't care whether you are pro or against climate change action, but at least you are being perfectly HONEST.
So that's right, it is about risk and how to deal with that risk. To me this analogy fits: you are on a fast road and there is limited visibility, you see some object on the road up ahead, and you know that if you swerve violently you might just swerve into some other car or a tree, or maybe just go off the road and bump and survive, or you could keep going and see whether the object turns out to be an old cardboard box or something less dangerous. The decision/problem is about how best to rationally handle the questions of the risks involved.
There are two common and really idiotic views on climate change:
(1) it is real and happening and undeniable and those who claim we aren't certain are asking for a 100% certainty whereas we are 99.9999% certain so to deny that is tantamount to questioning whether the world is flat or a sphere, and whilst it may be true that in some weird unpredictable way, climate change turns out to be benign, because anything is possible, the risk of planetary disaster, mass extinction, runaway greenhouse, etc. are simply too big and so we have to act, because by the time it happens, it'll be too late, so we MUST act
(2) there is a United Nations drive to create a grass roots political counter culture which will operate via NGOs as an alternative to national governments, for wealth redistribution from rich countries to poor countries, to halt population growth, to halt industrialisation, in some new mix of socialist world government, under the banner of "global justice" and "sustainability", and that movement is simply unelected, undemocratic, authoritarian, and nuts, and they are pushing climate change as "science" via the corrupt IPCC in order to beat everyone into accepting their new "reality"
Now I'm sure many people will think that (1) makes sense and (2) is the idiotic one, but here's what I think really makes sense:
The reason both views stink is because, they are both really about risk and the future, and nobody knows the future. I'm all for a world government, where any kid born anywhere gets the same great opportunities in life, but how do you get there? I'm all for protecting the environment, but there too there is always risk. For example, that TED talk by an ecologist who said that, back in the day, they knew, and all ecologists agreed, that to protect a grassland they had to change things, so they shot 10,000 elephants. And decades later they realised their model was totally wrong. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES. Of course, people only act when they think they know the answer. Of course, decades of expertise can go into that answer. And it can still easily be wrong. To think otherwise is just overconfidence in a world of complex systems. More fool you.
Remain open minded, to both ideas of global governance and to ecological change and to environmental damage and so on, and to economies, to education, to all the other human systems, and remain open minded about all these things, and then when thinking about risks, INCLUDE the risk of your established and accepted expert theory being wrong, include those risks and weigh up all those risks. Yes, welcome a global equal society, but also be sceptical about how to get there, the risks involved, after all, the current system is a product of people's past efforts, and you are not the first generation to suddenly grow some compassion. Likewise, look for risks to the environment, to societies, and so on, and climate change is one risk, but not the only one. Weigh up all the risks.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] And decades later they realised their model was totally wrong. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES. Of course, people only act when they think they know the answer. Of course, decades of expertise can go into that answer. And it can still easily be wrong. To think otherwise is just overconfidence in a world of complex systems. More fool you.
You might want to look at Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong [tufts.edu]. Science can never give us philosophical certainty, and many scientific theories are incomplete (i.e. "wrong" in the strict sense). But that does not mean that all are equally wrong, or wrong enough to be useless. Newton was superseded by Einstein, but is still good enough for nearly all practical purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
OK but I don't mean incomplete. Much of what we know is partially true, but useful nonetheless. I get that.
I'm saying that you have no guarantee ahead of time that your model won't turn out to be useless and harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that you have no guarantee ahead of time that your model won't turn out to be useless and harmful.
There are no guarantees. It's about risk assessment. Waiting for better models may be more harmful than using whatever we have now. Besides, fossil fuels are going to run out anyway, and we'll have to deal with the harmful consequences of finding replacements anyway. All we need to do is start a bit earlier.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, risk assessment, that's reasonable and that's what I'm saying. Waiting for better models may be more harmful, and/or acting on existing models may be more harmful. So let's remove all the garbage about "deniers" and "marxists", all the feigned certainty one way or the other.
Fossil fuels "will" run out eventually, but is that in 10 years, 50 years, or 200 years? Climate is changing, but is it going to wipe out all grain harvests, change some rain patterns, or increase plant growth? Nuclear power is dirt
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels "will" run out eventually, but is that in 10 years, 50 years
Probably between 10 and 50 years is when we can expect shortages. That doesn't mean the reserves will run out, but maybe your local pump does.
Why is climate change touted as THE MOST IMPORTANT issue? When that's just a wild speculation about risk?
I don't think it's fair to summarize the current insights on global climate change as "wild speculation". We have very useful models that match pretty well with reality. Common sense dictates that we use those as a basis for policy, and we'll start with the things we need to do anyway.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever we do there are risks, and start yeah, but start what? What if climate change is actually a fairly low risk in the grand scheme of things and meanwhile lack of cheap (coal fired) electricity is holding back Africa, and the underdevelopment of infrastructure, is making one of those global epidemics more likely? Something which could decimate humanity in a few years? Why is climate change touted as THE MOST IMPORTANT issue? When that's just a wild speculation about risk?
Which do you start?
We might, say, start by collecting an international body of experts [www.ipcc.ch] and ask them to look into the issue. Maybe they could periodically write reports, maybe on the physical science [www.ipcc.ch] side of the issue, but also on the impacts [www.ipcc.ch] of the physical changes. Just a weird idea, of course, but if we had started early enough, we might have had a first overview [wikipedia.org] by 1990! And if we don't quite trust those experts, we could e.g. ask some national science academies [nas-sites.org] to evaluate the issue.If they all violently agree [wikipedia.org], we might start to consider actions.
As for Africa: Sure, Africa has done so well in the age of "burn it like there is no tomorrow", so continuing in the same direction is obviously the right thing to do. Or maybe this is the most cynical propaganda meme I've yet encountered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as if the rising temperatures are something just recently discovered or somehow recalculated into the past. It's something that has been observed by several generation of scientists now.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate change to ever rising temperatures at least for Central Europe is thus we
Re: (Score:3)
Works exactly as stated for Germany. The past 10 years I've seen snowfall on maybe three days during the whole winter and the snow won't stay for long. If I want to go for XC ski, I need to ascend to >800m AMSL and even then snow is hit and miss. I had +14 C in mid December and mid February this winter FFS!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only risk greater than man made global warming is the risk that man will try to stop global warming. Sure we are influencing the climate and we should try to reduce that influence. On the other hand, I don't see any good from experimenting with intentional manipulation of the climate OR from crippling the poor's access to energy and standard of living in order to reduce that influence outweighing the possible negatives of a warmer climate.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to pick a fight after it's started.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the deniers are skeptical.
I disagree. Climate science deniers are not the least bit skeptical of anything that conforms to their desired result. A true skeptic is more skeptical of things that appear to confirm their biases than of things that don't.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt that.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... nobody actually is going to do anything. Or, well, did anything. It's a bit late at this point.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
You're picking a fight before it's started!
Indeed he is. Fights over global warming and denialism have never happened before on the entire internet. I look forward to reading this new and refreshing thread.
The only thing worse than the climate change deniers are the people like you who are absolutely convinced that the doomsday is coming. At least the deniers are skeptical. Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
For some reason that whole paragraph makes you sound like a denialist. I don't know if you are but you sure sound like one. For example jumping to the instant assumption that the author is prophesying the end of the world is a classic denialist trick to distract from actual discussion, and to discredit the science by trying to discredit an unrelated argument.
You then go and tout your "logical rationality", even though you jumped to wild conclusions about what the author read. For some reason the people least likely to use logic and rationality also shout most loudly about it.
So TL;DR, I've no idea if you're a denialist, but you sure read like one even without actually denying anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The deniers do not put forward any scientific arguments that contradict what is actually happening, most deniers are l
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is not doomsday. It is just bad for certain areas on the planet. It will also limit the maximal number of people who can live of the ground. From 9 billions to 2-5 billions, depending on the outcome (have a look at the IPCC report).
BTW: The deniers are not skeptical. If they were, they would ask for evidence and evaluate it. Instead they call it a hoax without giving a real scientific answer to their statement. Even worse are people who also do not use scientific data and claim that the effe
Re: (Score:2)
You're picking a fight before it's started!
I really wish that this was true, but I'm afraid the denial war is a constant and relentless presence. Only the bogus reason-of-the-month used to discredit the entire scientific community seems to change.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
Is that what you call "catchups" and "after-the-facts"? (sigh, flicks another ash in the fish tank, and mutters I'll clean it next week the fish are fine.
Re: Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wa (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure that this was done by the same bunch of climatologists who got stuck in the ice last year.
I'm just wondering, if you see a truck rolling down a road towards you, you're not sure if it will hit you and, you can't make eye contact with the driver, do you just trust that he is going to see you and everything will be ok or do you make a effort to stay out of the way? After all there is no evidence that the truck is going to hit you, so isn't it perfectly reasonable to just stand there and see if it does?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wa (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let met get this straight. There are satellite measurements of the ice mass on antartica and they show the ice mass is melting.
And all you have to say is: there is enough ice. See those scientists are getting stuck in it. See? There you have it. Everything is fine!
What kind of leadership are people like you looking for? Someone that will give you a fresh diaper when you are shitting your pants because bad things are happening? Or someone who actually does something about it?
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of leadership are people like you looking for? Someone that will give you a fresh diaper when you are shitting your pants because bad things are happening? Or someone who actually does something about it?
That's a perfect analogy because the someone who can do something about it is him, and you, and I. If we stop patronizing the worst exploiters, then they'll change their behavior. But we don't do that. We whine instead, in the aggregate.
The government can only change your diaper, or teach you not to shit yourself. But it would be nice if you learned not to shit yourself without the government's help.
Yes, the government is helping the corporations fuck our mom. But they can't do it without our help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Denier: "I don't believe anything and will do nothing about it." True Believer: "You're all going to hell but I will also do nothing but insist that you're going to hell!"
Moron: "paints with a bloody big brush, and only in monochromatic colours" (that'd be you)
A "denier" doesn't necessary deny everything any more than a "believer" doesn't necessarily do the shit you claim. The chance of you correctly describing any given "denier" or "believer" are about the same as you shitting in a bucket if it was nailed to your bum - very unlikely given your propensity for getting things wrong.
Don't take that the wrong way - I value your enlightened insights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
they said would not be there 25 years ago
Here is what the IPCC actually said of sea ice 25 years ago: On the basis of current simulations, it is not possible to make reliable quantitative estimates or the changes in the sea ice extent and depth It should be noted that the models considered here neglect ice dynamics, leads, salinity effects, and changes in ocean circulation.
Don't suffer from single study syndrome. [skepticalscience.com] Look for a consensus rather than focusing on one paper or another. The IPCC is a great resource for understanding the consensus.
actuallT record-breaking larger than it has ever been before in recorded history
I t
Re: Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wa (Score:2)
Why does it need to be only about the monetary value of ideas? LED bulbs cost a fortune only a couple of years ago, but their price dropped as adoption rose.
Everyone makes judgements on the value of intangibles all the time, and many people still value quality of life as high if not higher than money...except armchair economists for some reason.
Luckily some people are interested in the quality of life in the future, and have a desire to leave the world in a better state than they found it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why spend money on something that has a payback period of more than 5 years, when we have easier solutions right in front of us that have a payback period of as little as 1 year?
Because the low hanging fruit isn't very plentiful. LED bulbs don't have much of an impact on overall energy consumption, for instance.
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:5, Insightful)
if the world is ending, we might as well enjoy ourselves... If it ISN'T ending, then perhaps we shouldn't derail our economy
Are those really the only two possibilities that occur to you?
No scientist claims the world is ending; that's a straw man from the denialist camp. What the scientists ARE telling us is that the coming climate changes (which can't now be prevented completely but CAN certainly be mitigated) will have significant costs - economic and humanitarian.
Even if you ignore the human costs (relocations, famine, refugees, conflict over dwindling local resources - mostly in poor countries), there's still the economic costs (increased storm damage, droughts, flooding, sea level rise) which been shown by numerous economic studies to far outweigh the costs of mitigation.
Yes, it will cost money to move our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels. No, it won't derail the economy (the average estimate from the World Bank and many others is about 0.5-1% of GDP). But it will slow the onset of climate change, reduce the impact of changes in decades to come, and SAVE us hundreds of billions we'd otherwise need to spend adapting to the negative effects of dramatic climate change, not to mention other indirect benefits (like the surprisingly large health costs from fossil fuel pollution). Many studies show the investment in a clean, efficient energy infrastructure will actually save us money in its own right, independent of climate change effects.
Replacing lightbulbs is easy, low-hanging fruit, and there are numerous other efficiency gains we can make, but it's ultimately not enough. We don't have to cut our energy usage to the bone, we just have to invest in carbon-neutral energy generation - then we can easily support our lavish lifestyles with zero carbon cost, and save money in the process.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No scientist claims the world is ending
Unless you consider civilization being at risk, 50% of earths species destroyed, and an apocalypse to be 'the end of the world.' Then a scientist has told us the world is ending. [nytimes.com] If that's not close enough to "the end of the world", then that's it for species on our planet. [youtube.com] The oceans could begin to boil.
So you're wrong there, you weren't paying attention. Some scientists are claiming the world is ending (unless we follow their plan).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that we can't because by the time we've switched to carbon neutral methods, we'll be running out the the minerals we need to maintain our lifestyles. Only if we move to 100% recycling can we live the diverse lifestyles with all of the products we have now and it's unlikely that the whole world will ever be able to live the way people in the US are now.
Summary: The way we are living is completely unsustainable.
Re: (Score:3)
To recycle means to use again, one would argue that what you've described is not using the materials again so it is not recycling. The earth does not 'use' stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well screw it, if the world is ending, we might as well enjoy ourselves..." - well, lets all be so totally selfish and not think of others - great for our children etc
"If it ISN'T ending, then perhaps we shouldn't derail our economy in the process of trying to improve the environment..." what economy is derailing, the banks did that. There is a new industry start
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind a rational, reasonable conversation on the topic, but instead you've got "the world is ending we must DO SOMETHING" screamers...
Allow me to take a leaf from your book and say: Citation needed...
How exactly does the scientific community state that the world will end? Do they say that it will explode, like Krypton? Do they say that the oceans will boil away? If there is one thing that you can say about scientist it's that they always show their workings, so it should be easy for you to give an example of some paper that describes how the world is supposed to end.
But we both know that nobody has said that the world will actually end.
Replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs seems to be a very cost effective way to reduce our power consumption. Yet all we hear about are electric cars and solar power, neither of which make any economic sense.
Ar
Re:Zzzzzz (Score:4, Informative)
It takes decades for a "heat signal" to penetrate 1-2 miles of aerated ice
That's not the only mechanism. A bigger and faster mechanism is the melting of the ice shelves from the bottom up because they are sitting in warmer water. The ice shelves are currently slowing down the glacial transport. Without that, the glaciers would be going much faster.
Re: (Score:2)
What would you suggest? For the US to completely stop using fossil fuels?
So, seriously, what do you suggest?
Negligable?
You think 16.16% of total CO2 emissions is "negligable"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score:4, Informative)
Now, how do you propose to raise the tens of trillions of dollars necessary to build this massive solar-hydrogen power generation and distribution infrastructure you're talking about?
The same way you would have to do when oil runs out.
Re: (Score:2)
So how many (Score:2, Funny)
scientists trapped in the Antarctic ice are we going to have resue this time?
Re: (Score:2)
These are satellite measurements, so probably zero.
Re: (Score:2)
West? (Score:4, Interesting)
How does Antarctica have a west?
Re: (Score:3)
It's the portion of Antarctica in the Western Hemisphere.
Doom Closer Than You Think (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How big do you think West Antarctica is? They found one relatively small area of volcanic activity under one lobe of one glacier in West Antarctica. The volcanic activity could have been going on for hundreds or thousands of years for all we know. To trump it up as the cause of all West Antarctic ice loss is not warranted by the evidence.
Re:Volcano? (Score:4, Informative)
Jesus H. Christ how does this loopy paranoid bullshit get modded up?
The chemistry behind ozone depletion is well understood and actually testable in a lab. Secondly the people who descovered it were meterologists, not the chemists who find and patent new inert propellants.
Re:Volcano? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jesus H. Christ how does this loopy paranoid bullshit get modded up?
If you're really interested, consider reading The Authoritarians [umanitoba.ca], by Bob Altemeyer. He makes the point that traditional conservatism in the US has been largely displaced by authoritarianism -- something that can happen on the right or left but in this case on the right. These aren't grandpa's thrifty, public-spirited Burkean conservatives we're talking about here.
Re: Volcano? (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, the humanity is adding as much CO2 as 135 volcanoes would, in a year. And the next year, and the nextâ¦
source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [wiley.com]
Earths feedback mechanisms cannot cope with that geologically relatively short impulse. The extra energy that's being captured is showing in all of the sensors on earth and in space also.
Try to find a mention of that on the website.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the Thwaite Glacier vulcanism is definitely a factor in this - it's certainly not all due to climate change.
The accelerating sea level rise from this is still a problem regardless of cause. From your link:
In Antarctica, it’s the ocean currents rather than air temperatures that melt the ice, and melted land ice contributes to higher sea levels in a way that melting icebergs don’t, Harig said. As the ocean warms, floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice.
“The fact that West Antarctic ice-melt is still accelerating is a big deal because it’s increasing its contribution to sea-level rise,” Harig said. “It really has potential to be a runaway problem. It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet.”
Well you know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An amazingly schizophrenic site
When they are "explaining" they say things like what you posted
When they report the facts they say things like this.
http://www.livescience.com/374... [livescience.com]
And when you look at the overall Antarctic ice graph
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i... [guim.co.uk]
It seems to be growing despite volcanoes under western Antarctica.
So indeed who knew ?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be growing despite volcanoes under western Antarctica.
That's sea ice. It shows up in the winter when temperatures are cold enough to freeze the ocean. It disappears again in the summer. Yes, the maximum winter area of sea ice is growing, but that's expected.
The article is about loss of Antarctic land ice and ice shelves.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the maximum winter area of sea ice is growing, but that's expected
Except it's not expected
“All the climate models say it should be going down and it’s actually going up, and it’s making news,” said Shroeve, adding that the trend is expected to give ammunition to those seeking to discredit climate science. - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/22... [rtcc.org]
Must be nice to have faith. I have to get by on reason.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct about the models. It was not expected. Either way, Antarctic sea ice growth is not very important. It doesn't chance the sea level, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about Antarctic sea ice. We're talking about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is a totally different thing.
Do try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about Antarctic sea ice. We're talking about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is a totally different thing.
Right. That's what I said to GP who posted the sea ice graph. Do try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who posts a link to livescience.com and purports it to be science is a shill, a fool, or both.
(It's not hard to follow the money trail, folks.)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hey why not. Post it. I would love to see this money trail, creating biased reports one way or the other. Little tired of the STFU and Tinfoil hat brigades around here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I am educated as an engineer then applied mathematician, not a forensic accountant.
He wants to make a claim let him back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
No you created a link to the site.
You might just as well created a link to the yellow pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Italics
MY GOD MAN playing with fonts doesn't make your point.
Of course it did mine but I doubt you understand it.
http://www.worldclimatereport.... [worldclimatereport.com]
And there is total ice.
Please proceed to fold this into your psychosis about the world ending. BTW did you actually bother to read the earlier links or just dismiss them as being threatening to your reality ?
Re: (Score:2)
MY GOD MAN playing with fonts doesn't make your point.
Huh? I was quoting youn in the fashion which was popular here in the distant past. But feel free to go on an off topic rant about your strange biases. You can look up any of my posts, and you will see I always quote like that.
And there is total ice.
First: Ah but you didn't link to that now did you.
Second: that's ice EXTENT measured in km^2, not total ice which would be measured in km^3
Units: they are your friend.
Please proceed to fold this into your psyc
Re: (Score:2)
Go proselytize somewhere else
You're almost a self parody. Anytime anyone points out a flaw in your argument you launch into shrill screaming and shrieking that they are prophesying the end of the world and therefore their arguments are invalid.
Lie down elsewhere and beg someone else to drag your sorry ass across the line.
huh?
Re: (Score:2)
And there is total ice.
No, that's another sea ice graph.
Re:CO2 now causes volcanoes (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the land is pretty much permanently covered by ice, and since the land area is fixed, any changes in ice area must be from the sea ice only.
Also note that your graph is called "ant-sea-ice_fig.JPG", and that it appears on this page http://www.worldclimatereport.... [worldclimatereport.com] titled "Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%" So, clearly they're talking about the sea ice changes.
The ice loss that this article is talking about is a reduced thickness of the land ice. That's not something you can see on a 2D picture from a satellite.
Re: (Score:3)
One article in Newsweek 40 years ago.
Do you get tired of being easily proven wrong ?
Claims 1974: “ when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere–from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”
Later in the article, “Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip teh climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.”
http://content.time.com/time/m... [time.com]
It's exceptionally easy find these predictions, even though most of the publications were pre internet and never made it onto the net.
I have to ask though, just what made you think that because you could only find one that's all there is, and with your attitude no one would call you on it ?
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing. Science is now defined as "far left political hackery".
Yep that was just after Al Gore became an inventor and climate scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you have any actual arguments, besides the assumption that a large group of experts are all wrong ?
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that the "climate change" fear mongers are using labels to disparage their critics rather than resting on the weight of whatever "logical arguments" and evidence that they apparently have.
Same BS we saw with the terrorist fear mongers. If you didn't believe in the Patriot Act and war, you were unpatriotic and hated the USA and were letting the terrorists win and blah, blah, blah.
If the warmunists have such overwhelming evidence in their favor, why do they need to stifle dissent with a label th
Re: (Score:2)
Please forgive me if I do not immediately stop using fossil fuels etc.
Sure. But I won't forgive you if you don't work in some way to change that behavior. Mostly I just rant online to raise awareness of how BP and DuPont are preventing GE Capital from selling us Butanol, a 1:1 replacement for gasoline in cars which already are prepared for ethanol - all flex-fuel vehicles, that's a lot of chevys. Plus any other gas car with new seals and flex lines.
Well, the companies are called Butamax and Gevo, but it's really BP and DuPont who need to be swept off the face of the earth rig
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. We need MUCH MORE melding. Antarctica should return to the lush forrested state it had in the mid cretaceous.
Re: (Score:2)
We are 12,000 years removed from the last Ice Age
And those effects stopped about 8000 years ago. Since then, it is been very slowly getting cooler again.
Re:Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, sea ice extent has been mentioned several times. That's the stuff that freezes on the sea surface every winter, and melts every summer. It's not very important, and it's not what this article is about.
This article is about total ice volume, and how it's declining year over year.